• FBI has evidence of an interstate terror conspiracy that is being downplayed because it may point directly back to alphabet agencies. https://abc7chicago.com/post/protective-order-issued-ca-man-plotting-mass-shooting-alleged-madison-wisconsin-shooter-natalie-samantha-rupnow/15677215/






    FBI has evidence of an interstate terror conspiracy that is being downplayed because it may point directly back to alphabet agencies. https://abc7chicago.com/post/protective-order-issued-ca-man-plotting-mass-shooting-alleged-madison-wisconsin-shooter-natalie-samantha-rupnow/15677215/
    ABC7CHICAGO.COM
    Police records connect California man to teen suspect in Wisconsin school shooting
    A judge in San Diego has granted a protective order against a Carlsbad, California man who authorities say was communicating with the suspect in Monday's Madison, Wisconsin school shooting, Natalie "Samantha" Rupnow.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 98 Views
  • https://t.me/conspiracy_theory3/2704
    https://t.me/conspiracy_theory3/2704
    T.ME
    Conspiracy Theory
    are you ready for this thing to chase you ?? Follow Us -> Conspiracy Theory????
    0 Comments 0 Shares 69 Views
  • I wear my Sunglasses at Night

    This video is by a guy going by "The Frank Files." He actually shares some good information sometimes. But he has started this "They want Conspiracy People to stop believing in space" nonsense!

    And he acts as if Flat Earth is some kind of psy-op
    The guy is in LOVE with "Conspiracies" and would rather sacrifice the TRUTH to keep his conspiracy world going, than to just admit he's wrong!

    So be careful of anything you may hear coming from him!
    Because he's all about the "Conspiracy" whether it's #Propaganda or not!

    At this point... I'm calling SHILL
    I mean he could be that brainwashed, but I doubt it

    https://rumble.com/v60nqn2-i-wear-my-sunglasses-at-night.html
    I wear my Sunglasses at Night This video is by a guy going by "The Frank Files." He actually shares some good information sometimes. But he has started this "They want Conspiracy People to stop believing in space" nonsense! And he acts as if Flat Earth is some kind of psy-op The guy is in LOVE with "Conspiracies" and would rather sacrifice the TRUTH to keep his conspiracy world going, than to just admit he's wrong! So be careful of anything you may hear coming from him! Because he's all about the "Conspiracy" whether it's #Propaganda or not! At this point... I'm calling SHILL I mean he could be that brainwashed, but I doubt it https://rumble.com/v60nqn2-i-wear-my-sunglasses-at-night.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares 274 Views

  • Inadequate Litigant’s Cases Dismissed

    Plaintiff, by her Litigation Appears to Establish the Report for a Mental Health Evaluation Was Appropriate

    Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gECRyZ-f, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gs_4Bby9 and at https://lnkd.in/g67dDK8q, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.

    Post 4950

    In Samreen Riaz v. State Of California, et al., F087504, California Court of Appeals, Fifth District (December 2, 2024) the California Court of Appeals found itself asked to resolve suits against an individual and the state of California from an inadequate but excessively litigious plaintiff.

    FACTS

    Samreen Riaz was a licensed dentist – she lost her license to practice because of the facts underlying this case. According to her, there is an elaborate conspiracy to harass, stalk, threaten, and ultimately prevent her from testifying in a separate “whistleblower” case involving “OSHA and HIPPA Violations” at a medical facility.

    Riaz sued raising numerous claims against numerous individuals and government entities. The opposing parties challenged the complaint’s viability through demurrer and anti-SLAPP proceedings. The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion, leaving Riaz with no viable claim. Riaz appealed.

    BACKGROUND

    The facts underlying this case involve four discrete events.

    First: Riaz sued a medical facility and suffered an alleged eye injury while attempting to testify in that case.

    Second: She sought treatment for that eye injury but was refused service and then sued that doctor in small claims court.

    Third: That doctor reported Riaz to the Dental Board of California which, in turn, initiated mental health competence proceedings against Riaz.

    Fourth: Riaz’s license to practice dentistry was revoked, and she filed the complaint at issue in this case.
    Initial Lawsuit Against Medical Facility

    Acting as a “whistleblower,” Riaz “disclosed … OSHA, Hippa, recruited patient, potential insurance fraud and anti-competent activities in the market” at a medical facility.

    After filing a lawsuit on that basis, Riaz claimed she suffered “organized harassment,” culminating in “permanent eye damage” after a sheriff-department employee pointed a finger in her face while attempting to enter the courthouse in her “whistleblower” case.

    Visiting Doctor for Eye Injury

    Riaz visited Dr. Cantrell to treat an eye injury. She claimed Cantrell became combative, refused to answer Riaz’s questions, and declined to treat Riaz. The next day, Riaz filed a complaint with the Medical Board of California.

    Several days later, she filed a small claims case against Cantrell, essentially alleging discrimination, negligence, and retaliation. A small claims judgment was eventually entered in Cantrell’s favor.

    Report to Dental Board

    Cantrell reported Riaz to the Dental Board. The Dental Board issued an order to Riaz to comply with a mental health examination “to evaluate her fitness to practice safely ….” (See Bus. &Prof. Code, § 820.) Riaz failed to comply with the order. Since Riaz continued to disobey the order, her license to practice dentistry was ultimately revoked.

    Instant Complaint and Judgment

    Riaz sued Cantrell, various government entities, and several individuals working for those entities (collectively, the State). The complaint alleged an elaborate conspiracy among all the defendants to injure Riaz, to intimidate her to prevent her from testifying, and to retaliate against her for the “whistleblower” case.

    The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion resulting in total dismissal.

    DISCUSSION

    Did the trial court err in granting the anti-SLAPP motion?

    Did it err in sustaining the demurrers?

    The California Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not err.
    Anti-SLAPP Motion

    In the anti-SLAPP motion, Cantrell argued his furnishing information to the Dental Board was protected activity and defeated claims “for discrimination, fraud, defamation, retaliation[,] and intentional infliction of emotional distress[.]”

    In opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, Riaz claimed again Cantrell “made inaccurate, knowingly misleading statements to the [D]ental [B]oard to defame and harm [Riaz] based on disclosing patient information.” The trial court concluded furnishing those documents to the board constituted protected activity.

    ANALYSIS

    Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims that arise from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged. Second, for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has at least minimal merit. If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will, and did, strike the claim.

    If there is no merit, the claim is stricken. The Court of Appeals noted that Riaz failed to adduce any evidence-including exhibits, declarations, judicial notice, and testimony-to substantiate her allegation Cantrell reported her to the Dental Board for retribution. She failed to adduce admissible evidence on the point.

    DEMURRERS

    Both Cantrell and the State filed demurrers to Riaz’s complaint..

    Additional Background

    A small claims plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating the same issue in superior court where the record is sufficiently clear to determine that the issue was litigated and decided against plaintiff in the small claims action.

    Governmental immunity is an affirmative defense properly raised by demurrer. Government Code section 821.6 immunizes public employees from liability for ‘instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding’ within the scope of their employment, even if the employees act ‘maliciously and without probable cause.

    Riaz alleged her claims arose in July 2022. Her written government claim was submitted in April 2023, more than six months later. Accordingly, the claims were barred, at least insofar as they stemmed from the section 820 order.
    CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

    Riaz failed to allege colorable claims against either Cantrell or the State. The potential claims against Cantrell were either tried and resolved against her in small claims court or dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The potential claims against the State were either barred for failure to timely present them under the Government Claims Act, or the State was immune under Government Code sections 821.6, 818.4, and 821.2.

    ZALMA OPINION

    It is axiomatic that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. The litigation history, the multiple actions, and the lack of consistency and evidence, establish that Dr. Cantrell was correct when he advised the Dental Board that a mental health examination to evaluate her fitness to practice safely…” was correct. She refused to fulfill her obligation to the Dental Board to be evaluated because she was concerned she would not pass. This case is an abuse of Doctor Cantrell and the state and should have resulted in serious sanctions.

    (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

    Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

    Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

    Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

    Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    Inadequate Litigant’s Cases Dismissed Plaintiff, by her Litigation Appears to Establish the Report for a Mental Health Evaluation Was Appropriate Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gECRyZ-f, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gs_4Bby9 and at https://lnkd.in/g67dDK8q, and https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts. Post 4950 In Samreen Riaz v. State Of California, et al., F087504, California Court of Appeals, Fifth District (December 2, 2024) the California Court of Appeals found itself asked to resolve suits against an individual and the state of California from an inadequate but excessively litigious plaintiff. FACTS Samreen Riaz was a licensed dentist – she lost her license to practice because of the facts underlying this case. According to her, there is an elaborate conspiracy to harass, stalk, threaten, and ultimately prevent her from testifying in a separate “whistleblower” case involving “OSHA and HIPPA Violations” at a medical facility. Riaz sued raising numerous claims against numerous individuals and government entities. The opposing parties challenged the complaint’s viability through demurrer and anti-SLAPP proceedings. The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion, leaving Riaz with no viable claim. Riaz appealed. BACKGROUND The facts underlying this case involve four discrete events. First: Riaz sued a medical facility and suffered an alleged eye injury while attempting to testify in that case. Second: She sought treatment for that eye injury but was refused service and then sued that doctor in small claims court. Third: That doctor reported Riaz to the Dental Board of California which, in turn, initiated mental health competence proceedings against Riaz. Fourth: Riaz’s license to practice dentistry was revoked, and she filed the complaint at issue in this case. Initial Lawsuit Against Medical Facility Acting as a “whistleblower,” Riaz “disclosed … OSHA, Hippa, recruited patient, potential insurance fraud and anti-competent activities in the market” at a medical facility. After filing a lawsuit on that basis, Riaz claimed she suffered “organized harassment,” culminating in “permanent eye damage” after a sheriff-department employee pointed a finger in her face while attempting to enter the courthouse in her “whistleblower” case. Visiting Doctor for Eye Injury Riaz visited Dr. Cantrell to treat an eye injury. She claimed Cantrell became combative, refused to answer Riaz’s questions, and declined to treat Riaz. The next day, Riaz filed a complaint with the Medical Board of California. Several days later, she filed a small claims case against Cantrell, essentially alleging discrimination, negligence, and retaliation. A small claims judgment was eventually entered in Cantrell’s favor. Report to Dental Board Cantrell reported Riaz to the Dental Board. The Dental Board issued an order to Riaz to comply with a mental health examination “to evaluate her fitness to practice safely ….” (See Bus. &Prof. Code, § 820.) Riaz failed to comply with the order. Since Riaz continued to disobey the order, her license to practice dentistry was ultimately revoked. Instant Complaint and Judgment Riaz sued Cantrell, various government entities, and several individuals working for those entities (collectively, the State). The complaint alleged an elaborate conspiracy among all the defendants to injure Riaz, to intimidate her to prevent her from testifying, and to retaliate against her for the “whistleblower” case. The trial court sustained the demurrers and granted the anti-SLAPP motion resulting in total dismissal. DISCUSSION Did the trial court err in granting the anti-SLAPP motion? Did it err in sustaining the demurrers? The California Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not err. Anti-SLAPP Motion In the anti-SLAPP motion, Cantrell argued his furnishing information to the Dental Board was protected activity and defeated claims “for discrimination, fraud, defamation, retaliation[,] and intentional infliction of emotional distress[.]” In opposition to the anti-SLAPP motion, Riaz claimed again Cantrell “made inaccurate, knowingly misleading statements to the [D]ental [B]oard to defame and harm [Riaz] based on disclosing patient information.” The trial court concluded furnishing those documents to the board constituted protected activity. ANALYSIS Litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. First, the moving defendant bears the burden of establishing that the challenged allegations or claims that arise from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged. Second, for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has at least minimal merit. If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will, and did, strike the claim. If there is no merit, the claim is stricken. The Court of Appeals noted that Riaz failed to adduce any evidence-including exhibits, declarations, judicial notice, and testimony-to substantiate her allegation Cantrell reported her to the Dental Board for retribution. She failed to adduce admissible evidence on the point. DEMURRERS Both Cantrell and the State filed demurrers to Riaz’s complaint.. Additional Background A small claims plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating the same issue in superior court where the record is sufficiently clear to determine that the issue was litigated and decided against plaintiff in the small claims action. Governmental immunity is an affirmative defense properly raised by demurrer. Government Code section 821.6 immunizes public employees from liability for ‘instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding’ within the scope of their employment, even if the employees act ‘maliciously and without probable cause. Riaz alleged her claims arose in July 2022. Her written government claim was submitted in April 2023, more than six months later. Accordingly, the claims were barred, at least insofar as they stemmed from the section 820 order. CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY Riaz failed to allege colorable claims against either Cantrell or the State. The potential claims against Cantrell were either tried and resolved against her in small claims court or dismissed pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute. The potential claims against the State were either barred for failure to timely present them under the Government Claims Act, or the State was immune under Government Code sections 821.6, 818.4, and 821.2. ZALMA OPINION It is axiomatic that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client. The litigation history, the multiple actions, and the lack of consistency and evidence, establish that Dr. Cantrell was correct when he advised the Dental Board that a mental health examination to evaluate her fitness to practice safely…” was correct. She refused to fulfill her obligation to the Dental Board to be evaluated because she was concerned she would not pass. This case is an abuse of Doctor Cantrell and the state and should have resulted in serious sanctions. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    LNKD.IN
    Inadequate Litigant’s Cases Dismissed
    Plaintiff, by her Litigation Appears to Establish the Report for a Mental Health Evaluation Was Appropriate Post 4950 Posted on December 18, 2024 by Barry Zalma See the full video at https://rumble.com/v607fvb-inadequate-litigants-cases-dismissed.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1K Views
  • ....ARREST ALL OF THESE "PSYCHOPATHIC CONTROL FREAKS", AND LITERALLY "EXECUTE/HANG" THEM, FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE BIGGEST MASS-MURDER IN WORLD HISTORY!!!!!!!!
    https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/0d/0a/01/0d0a01ee5c50fab0eec2d5e81cdad85b.png?width=568
    ....ARREST ALL OF THESE "PSYCHOPATHIC CONTROL FREAKS", AND LITERALLY "EXECUTE/HANG" THEM, FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLDWIDE CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE BIGGEST MASS-MURDER IN WORLD HISTORY!!!!!!!! https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/0d/0a/01/0d0a01ee5c50fab0eec2d5e81cdad85b.png?width=568
    Angry
    3
    0 Comments 0 Shares 410 Views
  • https://thecommonsenseshow.com/activism-agenda-21-conspiracy/tucker-exposes-fact-there-nothing-deep-state-wont-do-if-you-oppose-them
    https://thecommonsenseshow.com/activism-agenda-21-conspiracy/tucker-exposes-fact-there-nothing-deep-state-wont-do-if-you-oppose-them
    TUCKER EXPOSES THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOTHING THE DEEP STATE WON'T DO IF YOU OPPOSE THEM! | The Common Sense Show
    TUCKER EXPOSES THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOTHING THE DEEP STATE WON'T DO IF YOU OPPOSE THEM!
    0 Comments 0 Shares 132 Views

  • Intent to Move is not a Residence

    Residence Premises Requires the Insured to Live in Residence

    Post 4944

    Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intent-move-residence-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-qmlxc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts.

    In Paul Villalobos v. Clear Blue Insurance Company, No. 24-20125, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (December 10, 2024) the the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissa of Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Villalobos’s breach of contract claim following a coverage dispute between himself and his insurer, Clear Blue Insurance Company, because he admitted he did not live in the insured premises.

    FACTS

    Villalobos is named on a Clear Blue homeowners’ policy, which provides coverage for property located at 7503 Muirwood Lane in Houston, Texas (the “Property”). The policy’s “Property Coverages” section states in pertinent part: “We cover . . . [t]he dwelling on the ‘residence premises’ shown in the Declarations.” The policy defines “residence premises,” also in pertinent part, as “[t]he one-family dwelling where you reside . . . on the inception date of the policy period shown in the Declarations.” The Declarations page lists Villalobos as the insured, his mailing address as the Property, and the inception date as September 21, 2021.

    In mid-November 2021, Villalobos reported to Clear Blue that wind and hail had damaged the Property’s roof earlier that month. Clear Blue denied coverage after Villalobos admitted he lived in Colorado and had never resided at the Property.

    Villalobos sued Clear Blue, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Insurance Code, fraud, and ongoing conspiracy to commit illegal acts.

    ANALYSIS

    During his deposition, Villalobos testified that he lived in Colorado for over nine years and did not reside at the Property when the Clear Blue policy went into effect. Clear Blue moved for summary judgment on Villalobos’s claims, arguing there was no insurance coverage for Villalobos’s property damage as a matter of law.

    Applying Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit has previously determined that an identical residence requirement in a homeowners’ insurance policy required “more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it.” GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Joachin, 964 F.3d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 2020).

    Applying Joachin the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Property did not satisfy the policy’s residence requirement and was not a covered “residence premises” because: it is undisputed that Villalobos did not reside on the Property on the inception date of the Clear Blue policy; and
    Villalobos’s only material argument on appeal is that he intended to move onto the Property.

    Joachin held that “intending to move” is not enough. The Fifth Circuit concluded that there is no coverage under the policy. Accordingly, Villalobos’s breach of contract claim failed and the USDC’s judgment was affirmed.

    ZALMA OPINION

    That something as obvious as a home in Texas cannot be the residence premises of a person who lives full time in Colorado. Insurers issue property insurance policies providing coverage similar to a homeowners policy to the owner of a rental property while a homeowners policy limits coverage to the person who actually resides at the property. That this case went to the Fifth Circuit was the waste of Plaintiff’s time and money, the waste of the time of the trial court, and the waste of the time of the Fifth Circuit who rendered a concise and clear opinion. A less kind judge or appellate court would have imposed sanctions on the party plaintiff and his counsel.

    (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.

    Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.

    Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe

    Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg

    Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    Intent to Move is not a Residence Residence Premises Requires the Insured to Live in Residence Post 4944 Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intent-move-residence-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-qmlxc, see the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4900 posts. In Paul Villalobos v. Clear Blue Insurance Company, No. 24-20125, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (December 10, 2024) the the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissa of Plaintiff-Appellant Paul Villalobos’s breach of contract claim following a coverage dispute between himself and his insurer, Clear Blue Insurance Company, because he admitted he did not live in the insured premises. FACTS Villalobos is named on a Clear Blue homeowners’ policy, which provides coverage for property located at 7503 Muirwood Lane in Houston, Texas (the “Property”). The policy’s “Property Coverages” section states in pertinent part: “We cover . . . [t]he dwelling on the ‘residence premises’ shown in the Declarations.” The policy defines “residence premises,” also in pertinent part, as “[t]he one-family dwelling where you reside . . . on the inception date of the policy period shown in the Declarations.” The Declarations page lists Villalobos as the insured, his mailing address as the Property, and the inception date as September 21, 2021. In mid-November 2021, Villalobos reported to Clear Blue that wind and hail had damaged the Property’s roof earlier that month. Clear Blue denied coverage after Villalobos admitted he lived in Colorado and had never resided at the Property. Villalobos sued Clear Blue, alleging breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Texas Insurance Code, fraud, and ongoing conspiracy to commit illegal acts. ANALYSIS During his deposition, Villalobos testified that he lived in Colorado for over nine years and did not reside at the Property when the Clear Blue policy went into effect. Clear Blue moved for summary judgment on Villalobos’s claims, arguing there was no insurance coverage for Villalobos’s property damage as a matter of law. Applying Louisiana law, the Fifth Circuit has previously determined that an identical residence requirement in a homeowners’ insurance policy required “more than purchasing a home or intending to move into it.” GeoVera Specialty Ins. Co. v. Joachin, 964 F.3d 390, 393 (5th Cir. 2020). Applying Joachin the Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the Property did not satisfy the policy’s residence requirement and was not a covered “residence premises” because: it is undisputed that Villalobos did not reside on the Property on the inception date of the Clear Blue policy; and Villalobos’s only material argument on appeal is that he intended to move onto the Property. Joachin held that “intending to move” is not enough. The Fifth Circuit concluded that there is no coverage under the policy. Accordingly, Villalobos’s breach of contract claim failed and the USDC’s judgment was affirmed. ZALMA OPINION That something as obvious as a home in Texas cannot be the residence premises of a person who lives full time in Colorado. Insurers issue property insurance policies providing coverage similar to a homeowners policy to the owner of a rental property while a homeowners policy limits coverage to the person who actually resides at the property. That this case went to the Fifth Circuit was the waste of Plaintiff’s time and money, the waste of the time of the trial court, and the waste of the time of the Fifth Circuit who rendered a concise and clear opinion. A less kind judge or appellate court would have imposed sanctions on the party plaintiff and his counsel. (c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc. Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos. Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
    WWW.LINKEDIN.COM
    Discover thousands of collaborative articles on 2500+ skills
    Discover 100 collaborative articles on domains such as Marketing, Public Administration, and Healthcare. Our expertly curated collection combines AI-generated content with insights and advice from industry experts, providing you with unique perspectives and up-to-date information on many skills and their applications.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 1K Views
  • Correct Joe Rogan…the Conspiracy Theorists were right…
    Correct Joe Rogan…the Conspiracy Theorists were right…
    0 Comments 0 Shares 155 Views 0
  • THESE SICK COPS JUST RUINED A LOT OF LIVES!

    It's just what #Police do... It's ALL they do!

    You must comprehend the FACT that
    POLICE NO PAY NO PRICE WHATSOEVER FOR RUINING INNOCENT LIVES!

    They face ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY financially, and are NEVER #Criminally Charged!

    But on the other hand, they receive bonuses, awards, and other accolades when they arrest large numbers of people! INNOCENT PEOPLE pay just as well as criminals!

    So WHY NOT arrest innocent people?
    Police only stand to GAIN!

    #Prosecutors never charge Police under
    TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights OR
    18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (As required by law)

    And Police have "Qualified Immunity" protecting them from being sued civilly, and even if they lose that immunity, TAXPAYERS will be saddled with paying any lawsuits! So there's just NO WAY POLICE LOSE when they do wrong!!!

    They can brutalize, and even #Murder Americans, and won't be held accountable!

    They can ARREST & IMPRISON INNOCENT Americans, and won't be held accountable

    Quite the opposite.... they will receive bonuses and awards for making more arrests!

    Innocent or guilty, it ALL PAYS THE SAME for corrupt Police in the United States!

    These Police need to be CHARGED CRIMINALLY under
    TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights AND
    18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law EVERY TIME they violate the rights of Americans!

    And the PROSECUTORS who fail to charge them under these statutes when they are clearly guilty of violating them need to be charged under the SAME STATUTE!

    The American PEOPLE have full control over the "Grand Jury and do not require any "government" aid to indict these officers! It's high time that Americans start USING THAT GREAT POWER TO SEE THAT BAD COPS GO TO PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG

    YOU have the power, the AUTHORITY to indict "government" criminals.... Don't you think it's time that you USE IT???

    https://old.bitchute.com/video/x5Ih9nV9uCQ/
    THESE SICK COPS JUST RUINED A LOT OF LIVES! It's just what #Police do... It's ALL they do! You must comprehend the FACT that POLICE NO PAY NO PRICE WHATSOEVER FOR RUINING INNOCENT LIVES! They face ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY financially, and are NEVER #Criminally Charged! But on the other hand, they receive bonuses, awards, and other accolades when they arrest large numbers of people! INNOCENT PEOPLE pay just as well as criminals! So WHY NOT arrest innocent people? Police only stand to GAIN! #Prosecutors never charge Police under TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights OR 18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (As required by law) And Police have "Qualified Immunity" protecting them from being sued civilly, and even if they lose that immunity, TAXPAYERS will be saddled with paying any lawsuits! So there's just NO WAY POLICE LOSE when they do wrong!!! They can brutalize, and even #Murder Americans, and won't be held accountable! They can ARREST & IMPRISON INNOCENT Americans, and won't be held accountable Quite the opposite.... they will receive bonuses and awards for making more arrests! Innocent or guilty, it ALL PAYS THE SAME for corrupt Police in the United States! These Police need to be CHARGED CRIMINALLY under TITLE 18 U.S.C. § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights AND 18 U.S.C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law EVERY TIME they violate the rights of Americans! And the PROSECUTORS who fail to charge them under these statutes when they are clearly guilty of violating them need to be charged under the SAME STATUTE! The American PEOPLE have full control over the "Grand Jury and do not require any "government" aid to indict these officers! It's high time that Americans start USING THAT GREAT POWER TO SEE THAT BAD COPS GO TO PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG YOU have the power, the AUTHORITY to indict "government" criminals.... Don't you think it's time that you USE IT??? https://old.bitchute.com/video/x5Ih9nV9uCQ/
    OLD.BITCHUTE.COM
    These Sick Cops Just RUINED a LOT of Lives!
    There are a LOT of innocent lives that just got ruined by these cops! How do we fix this? 🔴 Grab a SHIRT: http://bit.ly/HighImpactFlix-Merch Become a Channel member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTSYXSwbauRs79G1skOCzIw/join Support the chan…
    0 Comments 0 Shares 841 Views
  • Notice how the same people accused of "spirit cooking" with Marina Abramovic, Ukraine's ambassador for children, are also facing lawsuits accusing them of se*ually assaulting children.
    The conspiracy theorists tried to tell you about Jay-Z and now he's being accused of assaulting a 13-year-old child in the year 2000.
    Notice how the same people accused of "spirit cooking" with Marina Abramovic, Ukraine's ambassador for children, are also facing lawsuits accusing them of se*ually assaulting children. The conspiracy theorists tried to tell you about Jay-Z and now he's being accused of assaulting a 13-year-old child in the year 2000.
    0 Comments 0 Shares 269 Views 1
More Results
Sponsored

We are 100% funded for October.

Thanks to everyone who helped out. 🥰

Xephula monthly operating expenses for 2024 - Server: $143/month - Backup Software: $6/month - Object Storage: $6/month - SMTP Service: $10/month - Stripe Processing Fees: ~$10/month - Total: $175/month

Xephula Funding Meter

Please Donate Here